Comments by prolibertas

Comment #259568 by prolibertas on October 3, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Argh! Censoring my boy Pat. Nothing can make me more angry right now.

Not to mention that introducing sharia law out of 'respect' is only respecting the fundamentalists. There are moderates who came to the West to ESCAPE sharia law, only to find, when they get here, that spineless cultural relativists are trying to get it forced on them here... all out of 'respect'. Bullshit!

2. Bill Maher's Religulous Opens Today

Comment #259559 by prolibertas on October 3, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Check out the rabbi in that review:

'Since the laws prohibit you from operating machines, for example, they've invented a "negative telephone." Here's how it works: All the numbers on the touchpad are constantly engaged. All you do is insert little sticks into holes beside the numbers you don't want to work'.

Yes, because that's supposed to fool God. Sometimes it seems like some believers don't really take their God all that seriously. Maybe this movie will do at least some good.

3. Mathematics and faith explain altruism

Comment #255501 by prolibertas on September 27, 2008 at 8:02 pm

'Ask Nowak for a reason for his belief in God and he answers simply that he has had faith ever since he was a child'.

How dare they imply that WE are unfalsifiable dogmatists for not believing in God, when the only reason given for God's existence is the above absolute tripe of a non-argument?

Is it just me, or doesn't the whole idea of cooperation being beneficial for the individual strike you as being more of a point in Dawkins' favour? What on earth are they on about?

4. Richard Dawkins infected with Satanic 'virus of mind', Christian group claims

Comment #251502 by prolibertas on September 21, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Atheist: Religion is blind faith
Theist: Atheism is blind faith
theinquisitor-

Atheist: Creationism is unscientific
Theist: Evolution is unscientific

Atheist: Religion is a mind virus
Theist: Atheism is a mind virus

Isn't this just a long winded way of them saying "oh yeah?!"

-More like "I know you are, but what am I? Neh-neh neh neh-neh!"

5. Look Who's Irrational Now

Comment #250511 by prolibertas on September 19, 2008 at 7:36 pm

It may be true that when many people stop believing one irrational thing, they just take up another irrational thing- what else would you expect if the reason they believed in the first place was because they 'wanted' to believe it. What people and even societies want to believe can change over time. Look at New Agers: many don't disbelieve traditional religion because its evidence doesn't stand up. Many disbelieve it just because they don't like it.

Where I thought the writer first went wrong was saying that the 'new atheist campaign' was JUST about discouraging religion. I thought it was also about encouraging science and reason. If the world turns to paranormal superstition, it won't be because of the 'new atheism'.

But where the writer totally loses respectability is the part about 21% of atheists believing in a personal God and so on... surely the writer sees that this is probably due to people misunderstanding the question? It's a flat out contradiction. How can anyone take it seriously?

6. God, Evolution and Charles Darwin

Comment #249982 by prolibertas on September 18, 2008 at 7:58 pm

That's true. But somehow I can't see modern Christians, Muslims and Jews seeing their God as a 'capricious bastard'! I've tried before to quote their scriptures back at them to prove exactly this point, and they still don't see it. So we're stuck with the definition I gave.

7. God, Evolution and Charles Darwin

Comment #249975 by prolibertas on September 18, 2008 at 7:46 pm

Bonzai- Why not? God is anything that you can make up. Who is to say that God cannot be a twisted bastard and/or incompetent to boot.

Ha ha. Well yes, an incompetent, indifferent or evil god using evolution I could understand. Except, of course, that that isn't the kind of God that theistic evolutionists are generally talking about. I'll rephrase it: I don't know how evolution and an all good/all powerful/all knowing God are compatible.

8. God, Evolution and Charles Darwin

Comment #249971 by prolibertas on September 18, 2008 at 7:39 pm

What I want to know is HOW theistic evolutionists reconcile God and evolution. In my mind, it's just not enough to say 'God used evolution as his means of creation'. Surely this raises more questions than it solves. Like:

A) Why would God choose to use the one method of creation that makes it look like he doesn't exist?

and

B) Why would God choose a method involving survival of those born fit and a culling of those born weak, a method callously indifferent to suffering?

It's these two points that need to be answered before I can think God and evolution are at all compatible. So unless Darwin answered these two points, I don't care that he said God and evolution were compatible. Just saying it doesn't make it so. Sometimes I wonder if theistic evolutionists actually understand how evolution works.

9. Genes might not be so selfish after all

Comment #249158 by prolibertas on September 17, 2008 at 3:39 pm

'Neo-Lamarckism'? Sounds like same old Lamarckism, at least as I understood it (maybe I didn't). Not exactly an amazingly original idea, as this guy makes out.

10. What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #245451 by prolibertas on September 10, 2008 at 8:11 pm

Well first we have to define what is meant by 'purpose' and 'meaning'. I can take a page out of Dawkins' book (literally) and say my life has great meaning because it was so staggeringly statistically improbable that either I or any of my loved ones would even exist. A dinosaur stepping on a rodent in the Jurassic period could have wiped out my ancestors, for instance. We are privileged to be, and to have known at all those we have loved- and lost.

But if what most people who ask the question mean by 'purpose' is something that gives some kind of goal to their every action, then I'd say atheism gives no objective purpose to life (yes, no?) But even if God does exist, any meaning he makes up for our lives would have to be just as arbitrary as us making up our meaning in life. For some reason people find such objective pointlessness, either way, to be depressing. Personally, back when I did believe in 'grand design', I used to constantly worry about what I was 'supposed' to be doing, not knowing if I was doing it or if I was doing it right, or what it is 'supposed' to mean in the grand design whenever something bad happened. I can only speak for myself, of course, but not having an unknown and unknowable grand design to worry about is actually a huge relief.

Basically, I think atheism simply means that we have the freedom, the oppurtunity, and the fun, of creating our own meaning in life, in every single day that we are fortunate enough to revel in the sheer fact of our existence.

11. Islam's war on freedom

Comment #243497 by prolibertas on September 6, 2008 at 2:23 am

Oh... oh... oh that was sooo good...

It'd be entirely worth starting a mass email campaign with this video- send it to everyone in your address book... shit knows I get enough God propaganda and chain mail crap.

12. Opening minds

Comment #242946 by prolibertas on September 4, 2008 at 7:58 pm

I think I agree with Blackmore. I've tried before to tell fundies the evidence, but it just doesn't have quite the impact you might hope. But tell them how evolution actually works, and they see more and more how it is just the logical consequence that you'd expect from things like climate change or the predator-prey phenomenon. At least they see that God isn't the only explanation, and that therefore complex life doesn't prove the existence of a designer.

One thing that's always important, though, is to stress how natural selection is NOT random. Strangely, you can talk about climate change, predators vs. prey and so on 'til you're blue in the face, but unless you explicitly point out that this means natural selection is NON-RANDOM, they'll just keep throwing up the old 'evolution is just chance' misunderstanding, ad nauseum.

13. Embracing goodness, without God

Comment #224032 by prolibertas on August 4, 2008 at 2:37 am

Yeah there's certain overgeneralisations and weird comments in this article that might make many of 'us' chaf a bit, but I don't think it sounded intentional. Actually sounds like an honest attempt from a non-atheist to understand 'us'. That's a novelty.

14. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222795 by prolibertas on July 31, 2008 at 11:23 pm

One of the bigger strawman's I've ever seen. Sounds like the author was the one trying to make science look like a religion in order to defeat it as a 'world-view'. How the hell do you 'worship' science? If 'worship' means awe and inspiration, fine- except for the small fact that it doesn't. Seems like another instance of defining words like 'worship', 'faith', and 'religion' in such a way that science technically falls into it, and then afterward using these words in regard to science as though the traditional definitons still applied. It's all just a damn word game.

Science is about questioning everything, and it doesn't claim to know everything- I mean obviously. How does sacred texts and inquisitors fit into this? It doesn't. As for fears of scientific 'extremism', like reintroducing eugenics, well, if such things aren't reasonable, then they aren't science.

And there is the difference between science and religion. No one interpretation of a religion is better or worse than any other, because they have no independent standard for working out which is the right one. Science, however, appeals to the evidence. So how can we trust ethical issues to such an arbitrary thing as religion?

15. Breeding for God

Comment #222096 by prolibertas on July 30, 2008 at 3:11 pm

We should limit immigration to people from secular liberal democratic countries. Then it would be clear that it's not about ethnicity, but values, which after all is our real concern here.

16. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #219917 by prolibertas on July 27, 2008 at 6:51 pm

'Surveys are not always an accurate reflection of the truth. Remember that the recent Pew Research pole found that "21 percent of Atheists believe in God."'

Yeah I read something like this on Sam Harris' site. I now don't trust any survey until I've seen the questions myself and made damn sure they couldn't be misinterpreted. But even then, I'd never have thought people could possibly answer 'are you an atheist?' with 'Yes, because I believe in God so much!'

HOW?! Do words mean nothing? It almost tempts me to stoop to post-structuralist wankery. It just fucks me off the amount of stupidity that's out there!

17. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #218748 by prolibertas on July 25, 2008 at 4:45 pm

'Americans, never tell an English lass she has a nice fanny.
Gotta love the evolution of English :-)'

Also, Americans, don't tell a New Zealand girl that she's 'tight'- I experienced a pretty hilarious episode when a friend of mine started going off at some American guys who called her 'tight'. I had to calm her down and explain that 'tight' meant 'cool' in America.

18. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #217741 by prolibertas on July 24, 2008 at 3:16 pm

Catholicism all 'modern and trendy'? Christian rock? Ugh.

You know that feeling, when you see someone make a fool of themselves in public, you feel embarrassed FOR them, even if they're total strangers? I feel that when seeing Christians trying to rip off secular culture and show how hip and cool they are.

It all reminds me of nerds in high school who tried to imitate the cool guys in an effort to say 'Hey I'm cool, really I am, please accept me please!'

Like those nerds, I'd respect Christians a little more if they just walked their own path unapologetically.

19. Man Sues Church Over 'God Injury'

Comment #210003 by prolibertas on July 13, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Just imagine the slippery slope... every time something bad accidently happens to you, just blame it on a random act of God, and sue the church and anyone else who claims to speak for God! This could be the most effective way to rid the world of organised religion yet...

And yes, I don't understand babrock. I could understand a lazy person using text language for the whole post, but he's not using all text language- it's just that one word 'the' that seems to bother him. It's very strange.

20. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203424 by prolibertas on July 2, 2008 at 10:49 pm

Fuck these double standards piss me right off. If the situation had been reversed, and we were offended at some animal put in a Muslim-made ad, we'd be called racists for complaining. Why aren't the same standards applied to them? Letting them off isn't exactly going to make them more tolerant

21. Aliens need Christ's redemption, too

Comment #201619 by prolibertas on June 30, 2008 at 12:06 am

Ha! I can't believe anyone is still impressed by old Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas is supposed to make us uneasy? He's an absolute pygmie when it comes to arguments for God. The first time I heard his arguments I thought they were a joke- the rebuttals were obvious the moment I heard the arguments. Then I thought I must be misunderstanding them, because surely no one was stupid enough to say what I thought they said, let alone become famous for them.

But no, he was saying what I thought he said, and he was serious. I still, to this day, feel that my intelligence was insulted just by hearing them, and think it's an appalling joke that they're still taught in university philosophy papers, and not just laughed out of the room.

I honestly thought Dawkins was wasting time refuting Aquinas' Five Proofs in the God Delusion- surely the Five Proofs just refute themselves? But after reading this article, I just can't get over it- I'm amazed, and can't express that enough. Some people still buy it.

I'm scared.

22. Creationist critics get their comeuppance

Comment #200639 by prolibertas on June 28, 2008 at 2:45 am

Obviously Satan tampered with the evidence. It's the only explanation...

23. Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Comment #198970 by prolibertas on June 24, 2008 at 11:00 pm

'He married her at the age of six, and he consummated the marriage, by having sex with her for the first time, when she was nine'.

Nice to see he restrained himself...
It terrifies me that this piece of shit is the 'model' for one sixth of humanity.

24. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179847 by prolibertas on May 13, 2008 at 9:47 pm

Interesting that he mentioned Dawkins and Hitchens, but not Sam Harris. He's the one who supports non-dualistic meditation as a good and universal human capacity, and see's the mind/body debate as still open- but he's also one of the new atheists. I think maybe Harris represents a bit of a problem for Brooks' whole argument. Thing is, even if science actually does go the way Brooks says, then it still won't be a victory for religion- it will just be science claiming the fields of meditation and non-material mind for the forces of reason. Obviously, if something is proven, then it's a part of reason, not faith, and those arguing reason over faith still win.

25. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162968 by prolibertas on April 17, 2008 at 6:17 pm

Jack Rawlinson said: 'Oh, and obviously God created the storks, before you ask'.

Blasphemy! Obviously, the Stork created Himself.

26. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162946 by prolibertas on April 17, 2008 at 5:40 pm

As for the so-called 'evidence' of Sex Theory, in things like 'fertilised eggs' and 'pregnant women', obviously it is Almighty Stork's arch-enemy the Emperor Penguin who puts it all there to tempt us away from Stork Theory. I've had sex hundreds of times but have only had a child once, which is exactly what you'd expect from coincidence!

Those who disbelieve Stork Theory are only confirming the ancient avian prophecy of 'scoffers at the end times'. Sadly, they become a part of prophecy.

27. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160992 by prolibertas on April 14, 2008 at 4:30 pm

'It all seems oddly reminiscent of the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem IN THE DAYS BEFORE HIS PASSION'. (capitalisation added).

Is this a veiled threat?

28. Darwin told us so: Researcher shows natural selection speeds up speciation

Comment #154194 by prolibertas on April 2, 2008 at 8:35 pm

This felt kind of like being told that they've just found fossil evidence for evolution... wasn't this already obvious?

29. BBC 'too scared to allow jokes about Islam'

Comment #154182 by prolibertas on April 2, 2008 at 8:03 pm

I agree that we should start with the Mohammed jokes. Surely any pedophile joke can be adapted to the pervert, he did marry a nine year old. We can make it proverbial, like when you're talking about how hot you were after a run, (for example) you can say 'I was sweating like Mohammed at a pre-school!'

Well, that one might be a bit distasteful, but we can drag his name through the mud just like that, all as part of the 'conversational intolerance' that Harris and Dawkins talk about.